Landlord sue for not adding him in the insurance policy

[lestasri]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

The restaurant got a fire incident, the landlord has insurance to cover the building and the tenant has the insurance to cover the restaurant.
The landlord sues the tenant because the tenant forgot to add the landlord in the insurance policy. The landlord claim to have all the equipment reimbursement to be paid to the landlord, and charge the tenant for the landlord's cost and attorney fee.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

The restaurant got a fire incident, the landlord has insurance to cover the building and the tenant has the insurance to cover the restaurant.
The landlord sues the tenant because the tenant forgot to add the landlord in the insurance policy. The landlord claim to have all the equipment reimbursement to be paid to the landlord, and charge the tenant for the landlord's cost and attorney fee.

Who owned the equipment that was damaged in the fire?

 

[Zigner]

Yes, the landlord can "... sue the tenant for the equipments reimbursement from the tenant insurance".

Having said that, if the tenant was contractually required to provide insurance, and if the landlord suffered a financial loss due to the tenant's failure to provide insurance, then the landlord can likely prevail in a case against the tenant.

 

[lestasri]

The equipment purchased by the tenant and the landlord received reimbursement from his insurance for the building damage. The landlord has the insurance for his building and the tenant has the insurance for the restaurant.

 

[quincy]

The landlord does not have a legitimate claim to insurance money that covers the tenant’s losses under the tenant’s insurance policy. If the tenant owned the equipment, the tenant is the one who recovers from his insurance company the loss to this equipment.

 

[ALawyer]

If the landlord required that it be covered as an additional insured under the tenant's comprehensive insurance policy, and the tenant failed to do so, and the landlord suffered injury as a result, the tenant would be liable. Of course if the landlord failed to request a copy of the policy endorsement that the lease likely says has to be provided, tenant could argue the landlord waived the required insurance provision .

Also, the insurance provision is designed to protect the landlord from damage caused by or contributed to by the tenant, such as a fire that starts in a tenant's kitchen. If the tenant was not responsible for the fire or any increased damage to the landlord's property, there would be no basis for complaint. If the tenant did start the fire, then it's likely the landlord can legitimately attach the insurance proceeds the tenant would otherwise have received from his/her carrier.

 

[lestasri]

The landlord attorney accusing the tenant of breaching of the lease because the tenant forgot to put the name of the landlord as an “additional insured” in the tenant insurance policy for the premises, as a result, the landlord claimed that the policy precludes the landlord from claiming and receiving monies for its losses. What I do not understand how the landlord make this acquisition as the landlord received reimbursement from the landlord insurance for the building damage due to the fire.

The landlord received reimbursement from the building damage and the tenant received reimbursement from the restaurant/business/equipment damage. The landlord used this ‘additional insured’ point to get the money from the tenant.

 

[quincy]

The landlord attorney accusing the tenant of breaching of the lease because the tenant forgot to put the name of the landlord as an “additional insured” in the tenant insurance policy for the premises, as a result, the landlord claimed that the policy precludes the landlord from claiming and receiving monies for its losses. What I do not understand how the landlord make this acquisition as the landlord received reimbursement from the landlord insurance for the building damage due to the fire.

The landlord received reimbursement from the building damage and the tenant received reimbursement from the restaurant/business/equipment damage. The landlord used this ‘additional insured’ point to get the money from the tenant.

It is the landlord’s insurance company more than likely that is seeking reimbursement from the tenant’s insurance company.

What caused the fire?

 

[Zigner]

The landlord attorney accusing the tenant of breaching of the lease because the tenant forgot to put the name of the landlord as an “additional insured” in the tenant insurance policy for the premises, as a result, the landlord claimed that the policy precludes the landlord from claiming and receiving monies for its losses. What I do not understand how the landlord make this acquisition as the landlord received reimbursement from the landlord insurance for the building damage due to the fire.

The landlord received reimbursement from the building damage and the tenant received reimbursement from the restaurant/business/equipment damage. The landlord used this ‘additional insured’ point to get the money from the tenant.

If this is already a done-deal, why is it coming up?

 

[lestasri]

It is the landlord’s insurance company more than likely that is seeking reimbursement from the tenant’s insurance company.

Both landlord and tenant insurance have been meeting together with the adjuster to cross-checked who gets what, and both insurances have reimbursed both parties with the damage. However, the landlord wants to get more money and find the loophole in the lease agreement that he can use against the tenant.

What caused the fire? The electrical caused the fire. The fire happened when no one was on the premises. It was around 10:00 PM.

 

[lestasri]

If this is already a done-deal, why is it coming up?

Not yet, both landlord is still working on it. The landlord's attorney keeps pointing out that the tenant breaches the lease by not including the landlord in the tenant insurance policy.

 

[Zigner]

Not yet, both landlord is still working on it. The landlord's attorney keeps pointing out that the tenant breaches the lease by not including the landlord in the tenant insurance policy.

That is likely true, but that doesn't cause the tenant to be liable for what the landlord is claiming.

The tenant should consult with an attorney. He should contact his insurance company to see if they would provide coverage for a matter such as this. There really is nothing that an internet forum can help with.

 

[quincy]

Are you the landlord or the tenant, or just a curious sort?

If the fire originated in the building’s wiring, it is possible that the tenant has a better legal action to pursue against the landlord than the landlord has to pursue against him.

The landlord apparently already has an attorney. The tenant should have one, too.

 

[lestasri]

Are you the landlord or the tenant, or just a curious sort? I am the tenant, and I have the attorney, but I am just curious about what might be the result.

If the fire originated in the building’s wiring, it is possible that the tenant has a better legal action to pursue against the landlord than the landlord has to pursue against him.

What proof that I need to pursue legal action against the landlord?

The landlord apparently already has an attorney. The tenant should have one, too.

 

[quincy]

Was there a fire report? That could be a start.

If the wiring is part of the building that the landlord was required to maintain, and the source of the fire was in this wiring, that could mean you as tenant can be compensated for losses (e.g., lost income) over and above the costs to repair or replace the physical items you lost in the fire (e.g., equipment).

However, if the fire originated in the equipment’s wiring, that would be on you and not the landlord.

Is the landlord’s building a single occupant building (i.e., were you the sole tenant) or were there other tenants occupying the building? If other tenants, did the fire result in losses to them?

You can discuss all of this with your attorney. He has access to facts that we do not have. You should rely on his advice.

Good luck.